JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

“a). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 16.11.2006 passed by respondent no. 2 (Annexure No. 15 to this writ petition).

(b). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents to consider the claim of petitioner for compassionate appointment afresh and appoint the petitioner on a suitable class IV post, under the Dying in Harness Rules within some stipulated period, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper,

(c). Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case.

(d). Award cost to the present writ petition to the petitioner.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the father of the petitioner who was a permanent class IV employee in the department of respondents, left his home on 01.05.1996 at about 6.00 P.M. for night duty and did not return to his home till 08.05.1996. He was searched in the office and at the homes of nears and dears but petitioner himself nor any family members could known the whereabout of father of petitioner. The petitioner then lodged a first information report at the concerned police station and also informed the police control room, Allahabad.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the aforesaid news (missing person) had also been given by the petitioner to Print Media for publication, which was published on 09.05.1996. The mother of the petitioner moved an application on 5.8.1996 before the respondent no.3 for granting his salary till her husband is searched by the police because she is unable to maintain her family but nothing has been paid to the mother of the petitioner. The petitioner repeatedly approached to the concerned police station to know about the progress in search of father of the petitioner. However, the police reported that they could not trace out the missing person. In this regard, the police has submitted its report dated 9.02.2004 and 26.03.2004.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that in the instant case, the employee was missing, leaving behind his wife, Smt. Munni Devi and son i.e. petitioner, which was duly certified by the Tehsildar Sadar, Allahabad who has issued the dependent certificate dated 26.09.2003.

5. Learned counsel further argued that after exhaustive effort of search of his father by the police as well as by the petitioner himself, when the whereabout of missing father of petitioner could not be known, the petitioner sought appointment on compassionate grounds from respondnt nos. 2 and 3 by way of application dated 18.11.2003. Upon the application of the petitioner, respondent no.3 sought directions from respondent no.2 for further proceedings in the matter of the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner made a request to respondent no.2 that since on 01.04.2005 concerned police station reported in writing that the search of missing father of the petitioner has now been stopped and all the efforts have gone in vain, hence his case for appointment on compassionate ground may kindly be considered. The petitioner again represented to respondent no.3, repeating his similar prayer on 01.04.2004. Consequently, respondent no.3 forwarded the application of the petitioner to respondent no.2 on 08.04.2004.

7. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner as well as his mother jointly submitted an Indemnity Bond before the respondent no.2. It is made clear that in order to get appointment under such circumstances, submission of indemnity bond is necessary in pursuance to the Government Orders. So far as academic qualification of the petitioner is concerned, he passed High School Examination in 1987, according to which the date of birth of the petitioner is 20.07.1970. Thus, the petitioner is duly qualified and eligible to be appointe